Opinion; Subjects: BAHRAIN, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.12-15253
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its sixty-third session, 30 April–4 May 2012
No. 6/2012 (Bahrain)
Communication addressed to the Government on 28 October 2011
Concerning Abdulhadi Abdulla Alkhawaja
The Government responded on 5 January 2012.
The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the former Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working
Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. The Human Rights Council assumed that
mandate in its decision 2006/102 and extended it for a three-year period in its resolution
15/18 of 30 September 2010. In accordance with its working methods, the Working Group
transmitted the above-mentioned communication to the Government.
2.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to the detainee) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 July 2012
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
2
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for
reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language;
religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or
disability or other status, and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human rights (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
3.
Abdulhadi Abdulla Alkhawaja, dual national of Bahrain and Denmark, is a
prominent human rights advocate and leader of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights. Until
February 2011, Mr. Alkhawaja worked for Front Line Defenders as its Regional Protection
Coordinator for the Middle East.
4.
It is reported that, on 9 April 2011, Mr. Alkhawaja was arrested by the Bahraini
special security forces at his daughter’s home in Muqsha, Bahrain. He was provided with
no arrest warrant. Mr. Alkhawaja was placed in Al Qurain prison. The source reports that
his detention was ordered by the National Safety Court. For the next 10 days, Mr.
Alkhawaja was not allowed any type of contact with the outside world. On 20 April 2011,
Mr. Alkhawaja was able to speak with his wife for one minute, informing her that his trial
was to begin the following morning. The military allegedly contacted Mr. Alkhawaja’s
daughter about the trial, asking her to bring clothes for her father. Upon their arrival at the
court on 21 April 2011, Mr. Alkhawaja’s lawyers were told that the hearing would not
occur that day. On 28 April 2011, Mr. Alkhawaja was allowed to see his lawyer for the first
time, in the presence of the Military Prosecutor.
5.
It was only on 7 May 2011 that Mr. Alkhawaja was charged under articles 122
(working with a foreign terrorist group), 148 (treason), 160 (soliciting treason), 161
(obtaining publications that incite treason), 168 (libel affecting public security), 172
(inciting sectarian hatred), 173 (inciting criminal acts) and 216 (insulting the army) of the
1976 Bahraini Penal Code. He was also charged under articles 1 and 6 of Law No. 58 of
2006, the 2001 Terrorism Statute (funding terrorism) and under articles 1, 2, 3, 9, and 13 of
the 2006 Statute relating to Meetings and Processions.
6.
The source reports that Mr. Alkhawaja’s current detention was preceded by a speech
he gave during the protests in Manama’s Pearl Roundabout in which he demanded that the
royal family face charges for torture and corruption.
7.
On 8 May 2011, his trial began before the National Safety Court, a military
jurisdiction in Bahrain. Mr. Alkhawaja was prosecuted with 20 other individuals, some of
whom were tried in absentia. The source contends that little if any direct relationship
existed between the defendants who were tried en masse. It is alleged that during the trial
neither Mr. Alkhawaja nor his witnesses were permitted to testify. Reportedly, the
authorities limited access to the courtroom, refusing access to lawyers from Human Rights
First and Front Line Defenders. During the trial, Mr. Alkhawaja’s access to lawyers was
limited. After each hearing, the authorities allowed Mr. Alkhawaja only 10–30 minutes to
consult his attorney. The detainees’ lawyers argued at a hearing on 12 May 2011 that they
were not given sufficient time to confer with their clients.
8.
Mr. Alkhawaja was convicted of “organizing and managing a terrorist organization”,
“attempt to overthrow the Government by force and in liaison with a terrorist organization
working for a foreign country” and the “collection of money for a terrorist group”. On 22
June 2011, Mr. Alkhawaja was sentenced to life imprisonment by the National Safety
Court. It is reported that during the proceeding, Mr. Alkhawaja stated that he would
“continue the path of peaceful resistance”. According to the information received, the
authorities forcibly removed him from the court room ill-treating him subsequently.
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
3
9.
The source reports that Mr. Alkhawaja was placed in solitary confinement in the Al
Qurain prison and denied any further access to legal counsel. He filed an appeal, which has
been subject of continuous postponements.
10.
Mr. Alkhawaja and his brother are currently being held in a cell in Al Qurain prison.
Mr. Alkhawaja is permitted to confer with his lawyer once every two weeks. He is also
permitted to see family members pursuant to pre-approval from the prison authorities.
11.
The source reports that Mr. Alkhawaja and his family members have been subject of
targeting and threats by the Bahraini authorities. On several occasions Mr. Alkhawaja was
allegedly beaten and ill-treated. He had suffered four fractures to his face, requiring a four-
hour surgery to repair his jaw. He underwent this surgery while handcuffed, under constant
surveillance.
Deprivation of liberty as allegedly arising from the exercise of rights and freedoms by Mr.
Alkhawaja
12.
In the light of the foregoing, the source argues that Mr. Alkhawaja’s detention is
arbitrary, as it is exclusively linked to his peaceful exercise of the rights and freedoms
guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, according to the source it is a direct result of
his exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression (arts. 19 of the Covenant and the
Universal Declaration), the right to peaceful assembly (art. 20, para. 1, of the Universal
Declaration and art. 21 of the Covenant), freedom of association (art. 20, para. 1, of the
Universal Declaration and art. 22, para. 1, of the Covenant) and the right to take part in the
conduct of public affairs (art. 21, para. 1, of the Universal Declaration and art. 25 of the
Covenant).
13.
The source refers to the Bahraini Constitution which prescribes that the “freedom of
opinion … is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to express his opinion and publish it by
word of mouth, in writing or otherwise” (art. 23). According to the source, it was precisely
because Mr. Alkhawaja publicly expressed his opinions about the current regime, notably at
Manama’s Pearl Roundabout accusing the royal family of torture and corruption, that he
was arrested and tried together with 20 other opposition leaders and human rights activists.
14.
The source further contends that, in the present case, no restrictions to the right of
freedom of opinion or expression find application. Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant
authorizes narrowly defined limitation on the right when the restrictions “are provided by
law and are necessary … for respect of the rights or reputations of others … the protection
of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals”.
According to the Human Rights Committee, in order to be justified a restriction to the right
of freedom of opinion and expression must (a) be provided for by law; (b) address one of
the aims enumerated, and (c) be necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose, this last
requirement introducing the principle of proportionality.1
15.
The source recalls that the Human Rights Committee has stated that the exceptions
enumerated in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant “may never be invoked as a
justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets
and human rights. Nor, under any circumstance, can an attack on a person, because of the
exercise of his or her freedom of opinion or expression, including such forms of attack as
arbitrary arrest … be compatible with article 19”.2 In the source’s view, the Bahraini
1 See Human Rights Committee, communication No. 550/1993, Faurisson v. France, Views adopted
on 8 November 1996, para. 9.4.
2 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on freedom of opinion and expression,
para. 23.
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
4
authorities cannot invoke “national security” as a pretext to restrain democratic speech.
Furthermore, the source contends that the measure of life imprisonment in response to
legitimate criticism is manifestly beyond the “least intrusive instrument” as provided by the
requirements of necessity and proportionality.3
16.
With respect to Mr. Alkhawaja’s rights to freedom of association and peaceful
assembly, the source refers to the provisions contained in articles 21 and 22, paragraph 1, of
the Covenant and article 20, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration. The Constitution of
Bahrain itself protects these rights “the freedom to form association … for lawful objectives
and by peaceful means is guaranteed” (art. 27). It provides specifically that “public
meetings … are permitted” and “individuals are entitled to assemble privately without a
need for permission or prior notice” (art. 28). The source maintains that Mr. Alkhawaja’s
arrest and detention violate these rights. Mr. Alkhawaja was arrested shortly after he had
participated in and publicly addressed the protesters in a demonstration at Pearl
Roundabout. The military court convicted him inter alia on charges of organizing
demonstration without a permit.
17.
The source notes that his right to freedom of association was equally violated. Mr.
Alkhawaja has maintained strong ties with the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.
According to the information received, the Bahraini Government rescinded the legal status
of the Centre. At present, under the Societies Law, members of the Centre run the risk of
six months’ imprisonment and/or fines of 500 Bahraini dinars for their participation in an
unrecognized organization. As in the case of the freedom of opinion and expression, the
source maintains that no restriction can be justified to the right to freedom of association in
the present case.
18.
In its previous opinions, this Working Group has held that Governments have a
legitimate purpose for exacting limitation when an individual acts with violence; incites
hatred of a national, racial or religious group; or encourages war crimes.4 In the case in
hand, the source maintains that Mr. Alkhawaja has been a longstanding advocate of non-
violent democratic reform in the country and promotion of national unity. Any derogation
from the right to freedom of association must be “necessary to avert a real and not only
hypothetical danger … and less intrusive measures [must] be insufficient”.5 The source
submits that by targeting Mr. Alkhawaja for his role in the protests and the Bahrain Centre
for Human Rights, the Bahraini authorities punished him for promoting the very
“democratic society” that the provisions of articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant and article 20
of the Universal Declaration intend to protect.
19.
In relation to Mr. Alkhawaja’s right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, as
guaranteed by article 25 of the Covenant and article 21 of the Universal Declaration, the
source submits that his detention arises from his conduct at the intersection of the rights to
freedom of opinion and expression, right to hold peaceful demonstration and meetings,
rights to criticize and oppose.6 In particular, Mr. Alkhawaja called for greater participation
by the Bahraini people, including Shi’ites, in the Government.
Deprivation of liberty as a result of alleged violations of the right to a fair trial
20.
In addition, the source argues that Mr. Alkhawaja’s detention is arbitrary as a result
of grave breaches of the minimum guarantees as enshrined in the right to a fair trial under
3 See ibid., para. 34.
4 See opinion No. 8/2000 (China), para. 15.
5 Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1296/2004, Belyatsky et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted
on 24 July 2007, para. 7.3.
6 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996) on the right to participate in public
affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service, para. 5.
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
5
articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration and article 14 of the Covenant. One of the
most flagrant violations invoked by the source is the fact that Mr. Alkhawaja, a civilian,
was tried by a military jurisdiction. As the Human Rights Committee noted in its general
comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair
trial, “trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional” (para. 22).7 In
the view of the Human Rights Committee, such instances are “limited to cases where the
State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and
serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at
issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials” (ibid.).
21.
Despite his civilian status and limited access to the proceedings, Mr. Alkhawaja was
tried before and convicted by the Special Safety Court along with 20 other individuals with
whom Mr. Alkhawaja allegedly had little if any affiliation. According to the source, these
actions by the Bahraini authorities effectively denied Mr. Alkhawaja the right to a
presumption of innocence and a fair and impartial hearing in purported violation of article
14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant.
22.
Moreover, the source invokes the violation of article 9, paragraph 2, of the
Covenant, which prescribes that a detainee “shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the
reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. The
source refers to the Human Rights Committee’s finding that a delay of seven days violates
the Covenant’s requirement of prompt information in article 9, paragraph 2.8 It is alleged
that when the Bahraini special security forces arrested Mr. Alkhawaja, they did not produce
identification or a warrant. Reportedly, they did not inform Mr. Alkhawaja of the reasons
for his arrest. Mr. Alkhawaja was only charged one month after his arrest. In the source’s
view, this constitutes a violation of international and domestic standards of due process.
Similarly, the source submits that Mr. Alkhawaja was not promptly brought before a judge
in accordance with article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
23.
Mr. Alkhawaja was allegedly kept incommunicado for over a week following his
arrest. During that period, the Government reportedly did not permit him to communicate
with his family or his counsel. Once allowed to make a short telephone call to his family,
Mr. Alkhawaja was again placed in incommunicado detention until his first hearing.
24.
The source alleges that Mr. Alkhawaja did not dispose of adequate time to prepare a
defence to the charges brought against him as guaranteed by article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of
the Covenant. For instance, in Bee et al. and Abogo v. Equatorial Guinea, the Human
Rights Committee noted that the provision was violated where the defendants “were not
notified of the ground for the charges against them until two days before the trial”.9
According to the source, in the present case, Mr. Alkhawaja and his lawyer were not
informed of the charges against him until the day before his trial began, depriving them of
the opportunity to prepare an adequate defence. Moreover, the source reports that the
Bahraini authorities prevented Mr. Alkhawaja from meeting his lawyer prior to hearings,
and only for around 30 minutes maximum following each hearing. In addition, these
meetings were allegedly under surveillance. At least on one occasion, Mr. Alkhawaja had
to confer with his lawyer in the presence of Military Prosecutor.
25.
A fortiori, the source reports that Mr. Alkhawaja was not permitted to produce his
own witnesses or to testify on his own behalf. The defence was not even allowed to
conclude their argument before the sentencing date was announced, thereby allegedly
7 See also opinion No. 22/2007 (Egypt).
8 See Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1096/2002, Kurbanova v. Tajikistan, Views
adopted on 6 November 2003, para. 7.2.
9 Human Rights Committee, communication Nos. 1152/2003 and 1190/2003, Views adopted on 31
October 2005, para. 6.3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
6
precluding Mr. Alkhawaja from presenting a full defence. According to the source, this
treatment during trial is in purported violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the
Covenant and article 20 (c) of the Bahraini Constitution.
Deprivation of liberty allegedly based on discriminatory grounds
26.
Finally, the source submits that Mr. Alkhawaja’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary as
a result of discrimination against him on the basis of his religion. According to the
information received, Mr. Alkhawaja is a Shi’ite and was arrested just after having given a
public speech emphasizing the need for a better recognition of Shi’ite rights in Bahrain.
According to the source, the Bahraini authorities have been persecuting Shi’ites, in
particular due to their exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
27.
In accordance with its working methods, the Working Group requested the
Government to provide it with detailed information about the current situation of Mr.
Alkhawaja, clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention and explain how
his detention and trial are compatible with the pertinent provisions of international human
rights law referred above.
Response from the Government
28.
In its response dated 5 January 2012, the Government of Bahrain submitted a reply
covering the urgent appeal from the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and other mandates as well as the communication addressed by the source to the
Working Group for an opinion on allegations of arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Abdulhadi Alkhawaja as follows.
29.
The Government states that Mr. Alkhawaja was arrested in a criminal case No. 124
of 2011. The competent authority had initiated an investigation into allegations that he had
committed numerous offences, namely: membership of a group that was known to be
involved in terrorist activities; an attempt together with others to overthrow and change the
State Constitution and the monarchical regime; calling for the use of force to change the
Kingdom’s political system; spreading false and tendentious information and rumours with
a view to inciting unrest and harming the public interest; inciting people to break the law;
seeking to decriminalize offences; insulting the army; inciting sectarianism; and calling for,
organizing and participating in unlawful demonstrations.
30.
According to the Government, the relevant authority interrogated Mr. Alkhawaja in
the presence of his lawyer Mohammed al-Jashi, who was also present during the trial. Mr.
Alkhawaja was referred with others to the National Safety Court. The proceedings
continued until Sunday, 22 May 2011, and were then postponed to allow the lawyers time
to obtain information and to hear the witnesses. On Wednesday, 22 June 2011, the Lower
National Safety Court sentenced Mr. Alkhawaja to life imprisonment. The case is due to be
heard later by a civilian appeal court.
31.
In the opinion of the Government, the National Safety Court complied with relevant
international human rights norms and ensured that the accused enjoyed all the safeguards
guaranteed by law, including the right to communicate with his relatives and defence
counsel and to inform them of the measures taken against him and of his whereabouts. In
addition, the statements of the accused were assessed in an absolutely impartial and
transparent manner and all aspects of the defence were taken into account. He was also
provided with health care and allowed to exercise his private civil rights provided that they
did not adversely affect the course of the investigation or undermine the evidence.
32.
The Government also states that acts ascribed to Mr. Alkhawaja were offences under
the Criminal Code of the Kingdom of Bahrain, and have no direct or indirect connection
with activities related to human rights. Legal proceedings are conducted in public and are
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
7
open to everybody, including representatives of international organizations and civil society
associations.
Further comments from the source
33.
The response of the Government was transmitted to the source for comments which
were duly received on 6 April 2012. In addition to responding to the Government’s
response, the source shared the heightened concern for the life of Mr. Alkhawaja who,
protesting his unlawful detention, had been on hunger strike for over 60 days. This may
result in a grave physical and psychological threat to his life and health.
34.
The source describes the reply of the Government as “wholly inadequate” failing to
address substantive claims made in the petition above.
35.
The source states that the Government failed to provide specific details about the
allegations brought against Mr. Alkhawaja at the time of his arrest or the competent
authority responsible for the arrest whereas it lays these out in detail in its response to the
Working Group. Additionally, the Government’s response does not specify which authority
conducted the investigation or explain why the identity of this authority was undisclosed at
the time of arrest.
36.
The Government failed to properly address evidence that Mr. Alkhawaja was
arrested on account of his political and human rights advocacy. The fact that Mr.
Alkhawaja was tried en masse with 20 other individuals under the same security charges
raises similar concerns.
37.
The Government failed to properly address the restrictions it imposed on Mr.
Alkhawaja’s right to counsel and fails to acknowledge the restrictions imposed on Mr.
Alkhawaja’s right to counsel that violate article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant or to
acknowledge that other interrogations took place when Mr. Alkhawaja’s attorney was not
present. For example, the Government prevented Mr. Alkhawaja from seeing an attorney
until 19 days after his arrest, in violation of the “prompt access” requirement. When Mr.
Alkhawaja was permitted to speak with his lawyer on 28 April 2011, the communication
was only allowed in the presence of the Military Prosecutor, in violation of the due process
norms contained inter alia in the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Furthermore, while Mr. al-Jashi was present
during the trial, he was not notified of the charges against Mr. Alkhawaja until the day
before the trial, which deprived them both of the opportunity to prepare an adequate
defence. In addition, Mr. Alkhawaja was not permitted to meet with Mr. al-Jashi prior to
hearings and was only permitted to speak with him for up to 30 minutes after each hearing.
Since his conviction, Mr. Alkhawaja has only been permitted to see Mr. al-Jashi every two
weeks. These restrictions unnecessarily violate Mr. Alkhawaja’s right to freely
communicate with legal counsel and to be guaranteed adequate time to prepare a defence as
provided in article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant.
38.
In the opinion of the source, the Government failed to properly address the
restrictions imposed on Mr. Alkhawaja’s right to present a full defence and attempted to
mislead the Working Group by stating that the proceedings were “postponed to allow
lawyers’ time to obtain information and to hear the witnesses”.
39.
The Government failed to justify the use of a military tribunal in Mr. Alkhawaja’s
case and to provide a firm date for Mr. Alkhawaja’s appeal before a civilian court. The
Government acknowledges that the Lower National Safety Court sentenced Mr. Alkhawaja
to life imprisonment on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 and that the case is now due to be heard
by a civilian appeal court. However, as of the submission of this response, no date has been
set for this civilian appeal.
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
8
40.
The Government failed to acknowledge that Mr. Alkhawaja was held
incommunicado on account of his human rights activities and denied a public and open
trial. In its concluding statements, the Government of Bahrain claims, “legal proceedings
are conducted in public and open to everybody, including representatives of international
organizations and civil society organizations”. Unfortunately, these practices were not
followed during Mr. Alkhawaja’s trial. A number of organizations were refused entry to the
trial, and lawyers from the organizations Human Rights First and Front Line Defenders
were refused entry on 12 May 2011. The families of detainees were threatened and coerced
into refraining from contact with the Front Line lawyer.
41.
The Government failed to acknowledge the fact that Mr. Alkhawaja has been
tortured and denied appropriate access to health care. The source is critical of the statement
of the Government that Mr. Alkhawaja “was provided with health care and allowed to
exercise his private civil rights provided that they did not adversely affect the course of the
investigation or undermine the evidence”. The Government’s statement is misleading,
given that its severe physical mistreatment of Mr. Alkhawaja is the primary cause of his
need for medical attention. Mr. Alkhawaja has been severely beaten several times
throughout his detention, though the Government waited until he suffered four fractures to
his face before hospitalizing him. Mr. Alkhawaja received death threats from the prison
guards and experienced attempted rape by security forces trying to coerce an apology.
When he reported this to the tribunal on 16 May 2011, he was beaten and left outside with
his head covered with a sack. Following his sentencing, Mr. Alkhawaja was again badly
beaten for stating his commitment to “peaceful resistance”, and this beating resulted in
additional hospitalization. Mr. Alkhawaja has not fully recovered from this physical
mistreatment, and it is questionable whether he ever will.
Discussion
42.
The case of Mr. Alkhawaja has also been the subject of an urgent appeal of four
United Nations special procedure mandate holders; in particular his ill-health due to alleged
torture and ill-treatment while in detention and consequent hunger strike are of deep
concern. The Working Group has studied the information from the source and the response
from the Government closely. The Government submitted a response including some
charges brought against Mr. Alkhawaja, but the vague nature of these charges raise doubts
as to the actual purpose of detention. A number of questions remain unanswered in the
Government’s response. For example, of which specific terrorist group was Mr. Alkhawaja
alleged to be a member? What types of terrorist activities was Mr. Alkhawaja alleged to be
involved in? What evidence demonstrates that Mr. Alkhawaja called for the use of force for
political change or committed any of the other crimes mentioned in the Government’s
response? If these allegations were, in fact, brought by a competent authority, surely more
evidence would have been provided to show good cause for Mr. Alkhawaja’s arrest. The
vagueness of these claims and the fact they were not provided at the time of arrest, nor in
the weeks following it, raise serious questions as to their validity.
43.
On the one hand, the Government dismisses the allegation that Mr. Alkhawaja was
arrested on account of his political and human rights advocacy. On the other hand, at least
one allegation refers to Mr. Alkhawaja’s participation in the demonstrations, claiming that
these were unlawful but does not provide further explanation or evidence. Therefore, the
Government partially acknowledges that Mr. Alkhawaja’s arrest in fact resulted on account
of his political and human rights advocacy, or exercising his fundamental rights, including
freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Such a detention based on the exercise of
these freedoms is classified as arbitrary under category II of the categories applicable to the
consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.
44.
The reply of the Government inadequately responds to evidence that, throughout the
course of his arrest, detention and trial, the Government violated numerous international
norms that relate to the right to a fair trial, including access to a lawyer to adequately
A/HRC/WGAD/2012/6
9
prepare his defence, as well as freedom from physical pressure, abuse and torture. These
violations fall into category III of the Working Group’s categories.
45.
The Government also admits that the trial occurred at the National Safety Court, a
military tribunal. The Working Group considers that, in principle, military tribunals should
not try civilians.10 Moreover, the Working Group has expressed serious concerns about the
presumption of independence and the openness of the trials in military tribunals, while the
Human Rights Committee has clearly stated that trials of civilians by military or special
courts should be “limited to cases where … resorting to such trials is necessary and justified
by objective and serious reasons, and where … the regular civilian courts are unable to
undertake the trials” (general comment No. 32, para. 22). In such cases, the burden is on the
Government to make this showing of necessity, which the Government of Bahrain has
failed to do in its reply.
46.
The Working Group finds the response of the Government that Mr. Alkhawaja will
be tried in a civilian court unsatisfactory as no firm date for these proceedings have been
announced.
Disposition
47.
In the light of the preceding, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention renders the
following opinion:
The detention of Mr. Alkhawaja is arbitrary in contravention of articles 19, 20 and
21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14,
21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights falling into
categories II and III of the methods of work of the Working Group.
48.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government to take necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Alkhawaja and bring it
into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the Universal Declaration and
the Covenant.
49.
The Working Group believes that taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, adequate remedy would be immediate release and enforceable right to compensation
in accordance with article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
50.
In the light of the allegations of torture and other ill-treatment inflicted upon Mr.
Alkhawaja, the Working Group forwards this opinion to the attention of the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[Adopted on 2 May 2012]
10 See e.g. opinions Nos. 5/2010 (Israel), 9/2010 (Israel) and 17/2008 (Egypt).